Stuart H.
HurlbertProfessor of Biology and Director, Center for Inland
Waters
San Diego State University, San Diego, California

July 4, 2001

Mr. Bartley's paean to high immigration rates and
open borders reflects considerable misunderstanding of the big
picture. I comment on only two of its many blindspots: the
environment and the "unstoppability" of immigration.

Rapid population growth is the major cause of
accelerating environmental degradation in the U.S. This population
growth is now driven primarily by legal immigration. Illegal
immigration is a significant but secondary driver. And, in distant
third place, are births to U.S. citizens, or rather the difference
between births and deaths among citizens.

Our population growth rate is now higher than that
of any other industrialized nation. Combined with our high per capita
rates of resource consumption and waste generation, this rate of
population growth occasions great environmental damage. Some of it is
irreversible, and all of it is our legacy to our children and
grandchildren.

Thus it is accurate to say that immigration is the
greatest controllable cause of environmental degradation in the U.S.
The environment, of course, has never been a matter of prime concern
to the Wall Street Journal, so to see it neglected or 'externalized'
from an analysis once again is no surprise.

Even without open borders, the U.S. Census Bureau
now predicts that the U.S. population may exceed a billion before the
end of this century if there is no immigration reform.

It is equally misguided for Mr. Bartley to state
that "There is no realistic way to stop the resulting flow of people
[across our borders] -- certainly no way that would be
acceptable to the American conscience."

The great majority of Americans want a reduction
in legal immigration and a halt to illegal immigration -- and know
full well that there are perfectly "acceptable" means to achieve both
objectives. What we do not find "acceptable" is the kowtowing of
Congress and the Executive Branch to the powerful special interests
fighting for cheap labor and cheap causes.

With respect to legal immigration all that is
needed is legislation to reduce levels to what they were say, in the
1950s and 1960s. Why would most Americans not find this
"acceptable?"

With respect to illegal immigration, this is high
only because for decades we have offered many rewards and essentially
no penalties to those who attempt it. Those who hire illegal aliens
likewise are usually given a free pass. To solve this problem, little
more is required than to enforce laws already on the books -- laws
clearly "acceptable" to the American people.

Recent testimony
by Mr. Roy Beck before the House Judiciary
Committee has thoroughly documented the
failure of The Executive Branch to enforce U.S. immigration laws or
to assist communities heavily impacted by illegal immigrants. This
dereliction of duty has risen to a level that a growing portion of
the U.S. population views as treasonous. Mr. Beck offers a number of
constructive suggestions that could bring about rapid reversal of
this dangerous state of affairs.

Open Nafta
Borders? Why Not?Immigration is
what made this country great.

By Robert L. BartleyMonday, July 2, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT

Reformist Mexican President Vincente
Fox raises eyebrows with his suggestion that over a decade or two
Nafta should evolve into something like the European Union, with open
borders for not only goods and investment but also people. He can
rest assured that there is one voice north of the Rio Grande that
supports his vision. To wit, this newspaper.

We annually celebrate the Fourth of
July with a paean to immigration, the force that tamed this vast
continent and built this great Republic. This is not simply history;
immigration continues to refresh and nourish America; we would be
better off with more of it. Indeed, during the immigration debate of
1984 we suggested an ultimate goal to guide passing policies--a
constitutional amendment: "There shall be open borders."

The naysayers who want to limit or
abolish immigration look backward to a history they do not even
understand. Each new immigrant group has been derided as backward,
unclean, crime-ridden and so on; each has gone on to adopt the
American dream of a free and independent people, and to win
advancement economically, politically, socially. The ability to
assimilate is the heart of the American genius, precisely the trait
that sets the United States off from other nations. Immigration makes
the U.S. what it is.

On this Fourth of July we celebrate
this history more forthrightly than we have in two decades.
Anti-immigrant hysteria peaked in 1996, when the California
Republican Party self-destructed with anti-immigrant themes. Today
the GOP is led by George W. Bush, who told campaign audiences "family
values do not stop at the Rio Grande." The employer sanctions in the
1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill are now recognized as windmill tilting.
Congress has repeatedly raised the limits on H-1B visas for engineers
and such, to 195,000 a year from an original 65,000. Last week the
U.S. Supreme Court twice held that aliens are people too, entitled to
such basic rights as the presumption of innocence, petty 1996
legislation notwithstanding.

At the same time, the U.S. is
gradually relearning the secret of assimilation--every informal
recognition of cultural differences but no formal ones. "Bilingual
education," which trapped schoolchildren in a Hispanic ghetto for the
benefit of ethnic politicians and a few teachers, is on its way out.
Racial quotas generally are under increasing suspicion. In the next
census, in 2010, increasingly meaningless and irritating questions
about ethnicity may be abolished. This too bodes well for future
acceptance of immigrants.

Immigration now runs about a million
a year against a population of 275 million, a rate that remains below
the historical average. The proportion of immigrants with
postgraduate education is three times the native rate. New immigrants
are no longer eligible for welfare, removing that bugaboo. A study by
the National Research Council in 1997 found that while unschooled
immigrants are net recipients of taxpayer money in the first
generation, their children repay these costs.

About half of current immigrants are
Hispanic, though the Asian component is projected to grow rapidly. By
far the largest single source is President Fox's Mexico, a Third
World nation of nearly 100 million inhabitants sharing a 2,000-mile
border with the U.S. The opportunity north of the border is
inevitably a huge magnet for the poor but ambitious. There is no
realistic way to stop the resulting flow of people--certainly no way
that would be acceptable to the American conscience.

This was headlined last May when five
sunburned and dehydrated survivors staggered up to Border Patrol
agents in a desert called "The Devil's Path" about 25 miles north of
the Arizona-Sonora border. Searchers found six more survivors, then
14 bodies. Smugglers had abandoned the group in 115-degree heat
without water. This is no isolated instance; last year 491 souls
perished trying to immigrate. With the U.S. Border Patrol doubled by
the 1996 act, these victims were forced to risk death in increasingly
desperate corridors.

Sealing the border against people
willing to risk death is not a practical option, let alone a morally
attractive one. The only hope is to manage the flow of people in a
constructive and humane way. As President Fox says, "By building up
walls, by putting up armies, by dedicating billions of dollars like
every border state is doing to avoid migration, is not the way to
go."

Item one in any agenda to ease border
problems would be rapid economic development to provide opportunity
within Mexico. It's entirely possible that Mexico will become the
next tiger economy. It has the huge advantage of free trade with the
world's largest market. For all its poverty, it has a large
first-world economic sector and a technocratic elite educated at the
best American universities. Contrary to stereotypes, the general
population is exceptionally hard-working. Politically President Fox
promises a fresh start after ending 71 years of one-party rule. If
Mexico can avoid the currency depredations that have marred its last
quarter-century, the immigration problem may start to
fade.

North of the border, the solution to
the problem of illegal immigration is to make it legal, or at least
to normalize the movement of people. A program of temporary work
visas would allow Mexicans to go home; the incentive for undocumented
aliens now is to stay rather than face the border barrier a second
time.

Laws and regulations can generally be
made more generous. The 1996 Border Patrol expansion is a dubious
expense, expanding a cops-and-robbers game that sometimes turns
deadly. After the 14 deaths in May, the Mexicans promised to patrol
their side of the border in especially dangerous areas, while the
Border Patrol promised to arm agents with pepper balls rather than
bullets. During the campaign, President Bush talked of dividing the
Immigration and Naturalization Service into two agencies, one to
police the border and another to aid immigrants already
here.

Another amnesty for undocumented
aliens is already in the air; every decade or so Congress somehow or
another faces this reality. Even opening Nafta borders completely, I
would dare to suggest, might not unleash a new flood of immigrants.
There is a limit to the number who actually want to come, and
experience suggests that many of those who do already can find a way.
And after all, we did have a long history of unlimited quotas for
Western Hemisphere immigrants, ending only in 1965.

President Fox is nothing if not a
visionary. Many scoffed at his ambition to unseat the machine that
had run Mexico for generations; now they scoff at his proposals on
immigration. But over the decade or two he mentioned, a Nafta with
open borders may yet prove not so wild a dream.

Mr. Bartley is editor of The Wall
Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on
OpinionJournal.com.